Any sensible workaround in order to not leaving any leaf behind? Whatever comes out of the couchdb conflict resolution is fine. The content of previous/conflicted revisions is not really important and not something I would like to go back to.
Both masters receive writes independently. I am tempted to reduce _revs_limit, but it sounds it will be a bad idea if my masters lose connectivity to each-other for some time (they sit on different DCs). H ________________________________________ From: Robert Samuel Newson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 14:26 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Deleted documents being replaced by previous revisions Hi, What’s happening here is your document is conflicted. That is, there are multiple 'latest' revisions to choose from. In this situation, CouchDB chooses one of them to present to you when you do GET /dbname/docid. When you then delete that revision, you are promoting one of the others. The common way to introduce conflicts is to edit the same document at multiple locations and then replicate, which would appear to be your setup. Are you allowing writes to both masters? It is only non-latest (we say "non-leaf") revisions that are removed by compaction, CouchDB preserves all of the latest revisions (as we do not know which edit or edits you want to keep), so the revs limit of 1000 that you mention is in fact unrelated to your issue. B. On 25 Aug 2014, at 13:16, Sanjuan, Hector <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > we are running a couchdb 1.5.0 setup with master-master replication. > > I am observing that sometimes, a document has multiple revisions stored, > and when deleting the most current one, a previous one replaces it > and becomes available. > > The old revision numbers that are available are non-consecutives (i.e. > rev 1234 would be replaced by 742). Querying the revs would come back > with a list of non-consecutive revisions, for which a full document > exists even after compactation. > > As I understand it, old revision records are kept around for > replication and its contents subject to disappear on compactation. I'd > assume writing a document 1000 times and then issuing a DELETE would > mark it as deleted and inform of this on subsequent GETs. > > Has anyone come across anything similar? I have searched around without > much luck. > > Is this maybe related to replication conflicts were the conflict is > resolved but the conflicting revisions left behind? > > As of now, getting the documents truly deleted means issuing DELETE > a few times until every leftover revision is gone. Of course this only > shows up randomly here and there, and in small tests couchdb deletes > and works as expected. > > Thanks, > > Hector
